Teachers – It Is Time To Arm Yourselves Regardless Of The Law
December 17, 2012
There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding teachers and teaching in America, one of them holds that in order to be a public school teacher; you are required to become a progressive dolt. This, however, is not necessarily true. While the mainstream educational system is engineered to encourage socialism and dependency in our children, it also has a tendency to condition staff and administration with a collectivist mindset as well. For those who seek out teaching positions, it may feel like joining in with the socialist / globalist ideal makes life in our federalized educational system far easier to cope with. After all, teachers who stray from the establishment curriculum and who break conventions by offering individualist and anti-state views are very often subject to in-house persecution. This peer induced conformity creates a Petri dish of inbred thinking, but ultimately, the final decision of what to believe falls to the teacher and no one else.
While some educators might feel that gun ownership is counter to the yuppie culture they have immersed themselves in, and may fear standing out as the “lone conservative nut” at their workplace, they are going to have to accept that there are far bigger concerns than being a part of the herd. As the events in Newtown, Connecticut reveal, teachers need to start considering their own survival and the survival of their students.
The shooting in Newtown by itself is not the primary issue. The event will be forgotten within a few weeks by a majority of people, just like the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the Aurora Theater Massacre. That might sound cold, but it is reality. The tragedy itself will only stay with the victims and their families. The debate over what to do in the aftermath of the tragedy, though, will plague the rest of us for quite some time, and perhaps this is the root of the problem…
Establishment politicians (Neo-Lib and Neo-Con) and the useful idiots they employ have drawn out the debate on practical solutions beyond all reason. What they have done, time and again, is to exploit the deaths of innocents in order to push the political agenda of control, rather than looking at the hard facts and implementing a strategy that would truly work. If you want to actually fix a problem, you look at the fundamentals and apply what works, not what you WISH would work based on your biased worldview. To get to this point, we have to be willing to admit to those methods which DO NOT WORK. In the wake of the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School, what do we know about the environment on the ground and how it was exploited by the gunman?
1) Federal Laws Guaranteed A Gun Free Zone For The Attacker
Federal laws, including the Gun Free School Zones Act and the Gun-Free Schools Act, prohibit the possession of firearms within 1000 feet of school grounds (some states allow carry with the possession of a CCW, but this does not stop schools from firing teachers who do decide to carry if discovered). The Gun-Free Schools Act imposes a federal requirement on school districts to adopt a gun-free schools position that demands zero-tolerance policies and minimum one-year expulsions from school for gun possession in exchange for federal funds for district schools, meaning, the Feds are paying off school districts to entice them to go along with gun regulation:
Of course only law abiding citizens care about this regulation, and so, in the midst of an attack by a criminal element, teachers, staff and students will be the only disarmed people present. Most violent and mentally disturbed perpetrators still have a deep desire to live, which is why they rarely if ever go on a rampage at a gun range, or a federal building with armed guards, or an NRA convention. These men don’t want to die, at least not until they have finished their heinous act, and so it only makes sense that they would choose movie theaters in cities that have laws against conceal carry or elementary schools that are filled predominantly with progressives who are going to avoid gun ownership and yield to federal dictates. A school is an easy target, nothing more.
2) None Of The Teachers Were Armed
As stated above, people who lend themselves to the educational field have a tendency to gravitate towards so-called “leftist” philosophies of disarmament and dependency. The released information so far indicates that none of the staff present at Sandy Hook were armed. The gunman had free reign to do what he pleased unimpeded by anyone.
3) Quick Police Response Was Meaningless
Initial reports claim that law enforcement arrived on the scene within minutes, perhaps the fastest police response I’ve ever heard of in such incidences. And yet, the quick arrival of law enforcement served no purpose. The gunman had already accomplished a vast number of murders and had apparently committed suicide before they could put boots on the ground. This is the case in almost every mass murder this country has ever seen. When it comes to defending citizens against such mayhem, the police track record is abysmal, and these instances prove that they cannot be counted on to save lives. They appear to be more like janitors who clean up the mess afterwards rather than guardians.
4) Teachers And Staff Were Willing To Defend Themselves
Again, according to early reports, Lanza was charged by staff who attempted to disarm him before he could open fire. There is also no indication that these teachers had any formal self defense training whatsoever. And yet, they were willing to put their lives on the line for their students.
A common argument by anti-gun advocates against the idea of self defense is that most people will be “too frightened, undisciplined, or incompetent” to react anyway, and so arming them is “useless”. As Newtown shows, though, this is absolutely false. Had any of the teachers who did fight back actually been armed and equipped to fight back, the massacre may have never occurred.
These are the facts of the situation on the ground at Sandy Hook as reported. Now, the solution being offered by the establishment is, of course, to create more stringent gun laws, and perhaps even disarm everyone. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has suggested that President Barack Obama institute “executive action” to enforce his own gun prohibitions, bypassing Congress and the Constitution:
My question is, why is the solution of the elites always to remove people’s ability to defend their own lives? Why do they insist that gun control will solve the problem when it never has before? Here are several realities that derail the anti-gun position:
1) They’ll never get all the guns, let alone all other weapons. Criminals always find a way. This is made concrete by the recent attack by a knife wielding man in central China on an elementary school, resulting in injuries to 22 children and one adult:
The idea that one day the establishment will be able to ensure that no one, not even criminals, are able to obtain a means to harm others, is absurdly childish. If the state is incapable of removing all weapons from a highly controlled environment like the prison system, then what makes gun grabbers think they can sterilize all weapons from the entire country?
2) The authorities are not and never will be in a position to “make you safe”. Safety under the wing of government is an illusion. Governments enact laws and then enforce punishment, but rarely do they ever actually “protect” anyone. Law enforcement will never be able to reduce response time to the point in which they would be a superior option to you defending yourself. You will always be there when the trouble occurs; they will most likely not show up until you are dead.
3) If gun free zones are such an effective method, then why doesn’t the Obama Administration suggest a gun free zone in the White House? Surely, he can put his money where his mouth is and grab the guns away from his Secret Service protection first, right? What about Bloomberg? When is he going to fire his cadre of armed bodyguards, since he has such an aversion to guns?
Obviously, Obama and Bloomberg won’t adopt this policy because they both believe armed people on site act as a deterrent to possible attacks! So then, why wouldn’t armed people on site at an elementary school act as a deterrent to possible attacks? How can the White House and its lackeys claim that further disarmament of the law abiding public makes them safer when they don’t believe this themselves?!
It is clear to anyone with any common sense that there are massive gaping holes in the theory that gun control and disarmament helps protect the citizenry in the slightest. Even with more strict regulation, it is inevitable that another attack like the one in Connecticut will take place. That said, in the face of this information, what do we do?
My Solution – Teachers Must Break The Law And Arm Themselves
Numerous people have in the past suggested a change in federal law meant to allow teachers to conceal-carry on school property (some states and municipalities even have loopholes that make this possible), but I can say with general certainty that this is not going to happen, at least not for many years to come. When a law is unconstitutional or puts innocent people at physical risk, the only option left is nullification by the citizenry. If federal law is preventing teachers from saving their own lives and the lives of their students, then they have two choices: tempt fate, gamble on death, or break the law, defy school policy, and carry a weapon.
The establishment will claim that teachers are not capable of entering into a combat situation with an armed perpetrator because they “lack the training”. Yet, anyone in this country can take self defense or combat gun courses that surpass military and law enforcement standards if they have a little money and a little time.
The establishment will claim that teachers entering into a combat situation with an attacker would put innocent bystanders and schoolchildren at risk with stray fire. First of all, if a murderer is being shot at, wouldn’t his attention be on taking cover, rather than killing children? Does this not reduce casualties? Isn’t this what the police are supposed to do?
I would respond by asking the people in Newtown whether they would, in retrospect, go back and arm the teachers at Sandy Hook? Is there a risk of stray fire? Absolutely. But survival is often about odds and increasing the odds in your favor. By disarming teachers, the death of many children during an attack is guaranteed because there is no chance of the attack being thwarted. By arming teachers, the odds of the attack being stopped become much higher. With effective training on the part of the teachers, and with the knowledge that this training is taking place, the potential attacker may never risk violence at all.
Anti-gun quasi-hippies will claim that the very presence of firearms is “evil”, and that it “invites” catastrophe, like some kind of half-assed karmic voodoo. I’m sorry, but subscribing to this nonsense does not make you safer. Disarmed people are assaulted and killed far more frequently than armed people, by murderers, and sometimes their own governments. That is life. Debating the unseen metaphysical mechanics of the universe did not save the children of Newtown, and suggesting that a gun, an inanimate tool, attracts the dark forces, is an incredible waste of time.
Frankly, I’m tired of hearing the pundits and the politicians argue about what must be done for three weeks after every gun related calamity. It’s getting tiresome and I believe it is actually hurting this country far more than helping it. They never discuss that which is concrete. They never suggest that the right path may well be in the hands of average people, instead of government. They purposely avoid the topic of self defense, and drive the debate towards questions of regulation. This is not about regulation, folks. This is about you and the man with a weapon pointed at your face. To teachers I say:
Forget the law. If you’re not armed, you won’t get them before they get you and the children around you. That is all you need to worry about.
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market